Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Lucene and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Solr >> mail # user >> Core overhead


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Core overhead
Ted,

"...- FREE!" is stupid idiot spam.  It's annoying and not suitable.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought it was slightly clumsy, but it was informative.  It seemed like a
> fine thing to say.  Effectively it was "I/we have developed a tool that
> will help you solve your problem".  That is responsive to the OP and it is
> clear that it is a commercial deal.
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jason Rutherglen <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Wow the shameless plugging of product (footer) has hit a new low Otis.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Otis Gospodnetic
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi Yury,
>> >
>> > Not sure if this was already covered in this thread, but with N smaller
>> cores on a single N-CPU-core box you could run N queries in parallel over
>> smaller indices, which may be faster than a single query going against a
>> single big index, depending on how many concurrent query requests the box
>> is handling (i.e. how busy or idle the CPU cores are).
>> >
>> > Otis
>> > ----
>> >
>> > Performance Monitoring SaaS for Solr -
>> http://sematext.com/spm/solr-performance-monitoring/index.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>________________________________
>> >> From: Yury Kats <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:58 PM
>> >>Subject: Core overhead
>> >>
>> >>Does anybody have an idea, or better yet, measured data,
>> >>to see what the overhead of a core is, both in memory and speed?
>> >>
>> >>For example, what would be the difference between having 1 core
>> >>with 100M documents versus having 10 cores with 10M documents?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>